This is a matter that continues to incense me, though I recognise that we should all have become accustomed to the shit for brains policies of the liberal establishment by now.

One single woman's hurt feelings should not be put above the careers of two men with dependents in the name of equal opportunities when it is operational efficiency and the morale of the men who risk and sacrifice their lives in the Armed Forces that should be paramount.

This is such a truism that it appalls me that I have to point it out again and again yet receive something that is close to blank incomprehension.

Yes, I am saying that it does not matter if they disliked her for non-PC reasons. They have a right to dislike a colleague as I hope we all have a right to dislike someone and show it, however offensive that may be, provided it does not involve injury to person, damage to property or defamation.

How about a strike by Beefeaters if Mark Sanders Crooke is not reinstated? Now that would receive worldwide media coverage.

Of course this would also signal that we are so mad and silly that we are even riper and readier for exploitation and invasion.

A country that imposes PC-liberal values on its military, that willingly sacrifices operational efficiency in the name of equal opportunities that will do the country no good in fighting a war, that is happy to acknowledge that the career and feelings of one single Yeowoman is worth more than the careers and livelihood of two Yeoman and their dependents, deserves all that is coming to it.

Friday, 27 November 2009

Who's damn stupid idea was it to have women in the Armed Forces? And why do we not have the courage to admit that it was a very stupid idea proposed by stupid people accepted by even stupider people? This goes back to my previous wall post on the subject of this country being ruled by men who are really only women with dicks - senile, scared, demented women with flaccid dicks and shit for brains.

If there are any real men Beefeaters left they should down tools and go on strike, and risk being court martialled rather than put up for a moment longer with the way the Armed Forces are being run.

But we know they won't because these soldiers are too scared of losing their jobs and being accused of sexism, misogyny and male chauvinist piggery.

All they are fit for is to become cannon fodder in the unwinnable war of the inhabitants of Muslim lands they have invaded.

Stupid is as stupid does.

A US Official has at least chosen to resign over the conduct of the war, rather than wait for his pension like that idiot technophobe Sir Mike Jackson who is so dim he didn't even know how to switch his own mobile phone off when being interviewed by Stephanie Flanders.

It would not surprise me to learn that he even now remains ignorant of which button to press to either silence it or switch it off.

Tower spokeswoman Ruth Howlett said Cameron's entry in the online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia had been defaced as part of the campaign against her.

Did this Ruth Howlett perchance also hire Moira Cameron and conduct the investigation?

She was the one who conducted the investigation, apparently. Was she also the one who hired her? If so, should we doubt her judgment, integrity and impartiality?

There is a suggestion that Moira Cameron is a lesbian. Is Ruth Howlett a lesbian too? If they both are, are they having an affair? If they are having an affair is there not a suggestion of bias, if they have colluded to effect the removal of two heterosexual Yeomen Warders?

News has reached me that her uniform was not in fact damaged, and the defacement of her Wikipedia entry was to the effect that she is a lesbian.

If, as PC reasoning dictates, there is no disgrace in being a lesbian, then what is she complaining about?

So she lost her hair. Would a man complain about his colleagues if he was losing his hair?

Why should a woman be allowed to complain about her colleagues if she loses hers?

Is it one rule for women and another for men?

How does one go about inciting the 73 Yeoman of the Guard to go on strike in protest at the policy of allowing people like Moira Cameron in to grass up her colleagues and get them sacked because they didn't like her?

Thursday, 26 November 2009

The idea of the Domestic Partnership is not to negate the idea of romance but to save time and trouble.

As I have said, sex and fidelity is optional and can never be the ostensible reason to enter into or dissolve such a partnership.

One is therefore left with the practical social and economic reasons for forming such a partnership.

If romance flutters into such a relationship, it would be a delightful extra.

The conventional romantic view presupposes that romance should exist or even be manufactured and faked in order to justify such a relationship and be used to end it.

It is really speed-dating for grownups. Instead of courtship you have negotiations. This saves the woman from having sex with the man on spec and the man from spending his resources on hospitality and entertainment on women merely to test drive them, so to speak.

It would certainly be more economical, efficient and time-saving than conventional "romantic" methods.

Category 1(a) no longer has the father of her children living with her, if ever. (She is the lowest of the low.)

Category 1(b) has the father of her children still living with her. (She is not quite the lowest of the low yet. All that would need to happen is for him to walk out the door and she will become the lowest of the low.)

Let us call Category 1(b) Mother of Bastard Still Living With Father of Bastard ("MOBSLWFOB" or "MOBFOB" for short)

Category 2Divorcee AKA Divorced Single Mum ("DSM")
She may not be entirely to blame for her divorce if she was married to a brute who beat her and abused her children. However, at the very least she is guilty of marrying in haste and must repent at leisure.

Category 3Widow AKA Widowed Single Mum ("WSM")
She is the most blameless of all and most deserving of sympathy and charity. In some cases she may be envied because she is well-provided for. (There is however a possibility that she may be even more culpable than the Category 1 and Category 2 Single Mothers since she could have herself bumped off her late husband so that she could have the benefit of his property without the burden of his presence in the matrimonial home. In all cases one must assume that she is not to blame for her husband's death unless she has already been convicted of homicide.)

If females are the equal of men and men hit each other, what is the problem with hitting women, reasons an adolescent boy?

Adolescent females who are hit feel stupid, that is why they don't tell others, which would reinforce their self-image of being stupid.

The familiarity of contempt is directly related to easy and frequent sexual access to someone's body. The woman you have screwed enough times becomes a slag and slapper, especially when she didn't need much persuading in the first place.

Christine Barter of Bristol University, Senior Research Fellow for the Centre for Family Policy and Child Welfare, who spoke on the Today Programme seems utterly clueless. She is probably some unmarried lesbian academic with no contact with adolescents except when she interviews them for her research.

The solution is of course to have single sex schools and to tell girls not to be slags and slappers. Parents can tell their daughters that if they get knocked up by someone not their husband, they can expect to be taken into care where they will be paedophiliacally or hebephiliacally abused, which means they will probably go on to become an under-achieving drug addict/ prostitute/ porn actress / single mother with variously-fathered children who will become a parasite and cancer of society.

You will also disown or disinherit them, and you will do it too, though it really would hurt you more than it hurts them, which is quite a lot already.

Tell them nice and early before they even start thinking about boyfriends.

My solution is simple, effective and without cost, which means it will certainly be scorned and not adopted. The government prefers complicated, ineffectual and expensive solutions, as we well know.

To this end schoolchildren from 2012 will be told not to hit each other either at school, outside school or those with whom they are having sexual relationship.

It appears that the British government prefers to tell the world that adolescent British boys are promiscuous and savage and adolescent British girls are promiscuous and stupid, reinforcing the British self-image that we are all stupid, promiscuous and savage, instead of adopting the very simple measures that I have recommended above. Individual parents can of course do what they see fit, but perhaps British parents - especially the liberal ones - are just as promiscuous, stupid and savage and won't have regular access to my words of wisdom. If they did, they would ignore it because what I say satisfies their criteria of being judgmental, intolerant and uncompassionate.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Can women have it all? Do they want it all? Or do they just want to be wives and mothers again, with husbands who work for them?

The problem in the West is that the men have become useless. Not only are men in the West now just women with dicks, they are poor and stupid, accustomed to getting easy and free sex because slags and slappers give it to them sex for next to nothing. (To be fair to these slags and slappers, they are told that sex with anyone is OK as long as they use contraceptives and the person asking for sex appears respectful and polite. This is what they are more or less told at their sex education classes in British state secondary schools.)

Because men are so useless, women therefore feel they have to find a career and this makes them less prepared to take any crap from men. This is what I would call Self-Reinforced Destruction. You have a problem and the action you take actually makes the overall problem worse.

I think it is sort of what happened when the Millennium Bridge wobbled, causing users to adjust their gait to keep their balance, causing it to wobble even more, until it was closed down.

It has been fixed though and is OK now.

I think I have just put my finger on The Reason for the fall of Western civilisation: feminism propped up at the expense of the taxpayer, who is now made to pay for single mothers and their bastards who will grow into the next generation of criminals and wasters.

This has already been happening for several generations now and the quality of the national gene pool is now perilously low. Slags and slappers are breeding with losers and wasters at the expense of the taxpayer.

We are still doing it though because Western governments are governed by men in the West who are just women with dicks. They are fools and knaves, cowards and hypocrites, feeble-minded yet tyrannical, too afraid to discuss such things because they might upset and, oooh, offend people.

Yes, I do mean these male MP who are so easily intimidated. Scared of Harriet Harman, are they? Have the little members of these Members shrivelled up in the frigidairium of feminism? Then get out of the f*cking frigidarium, stupid!

Vote: Should women have a referendum on whether they would give up their rights under the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts and in return reacquire the ability to become mostly wives and mothers again?

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Still, there are other parties for disgruntled Tories to protest vote for. Let us hope that the "Turnip Taliban" as the Metropolitan Metrosexual Tories at CCHQ call them, avail themselves of their voting options.

Police want to speak to this man [photo in report], who is suspected of committing an indecent act on a Barnes to Richmond train last month.

A 21 year old woman from Barnes boarded the train at4.35pm on October 2 and noticed the man sitting opposite was staring at her throughout the journey.

Investigating officer Marie Jeffrey said: "As he was nearly reached her destination, she realised the man had started indecently touching himself beneath his satchel while continuing to stare at her."

The woman got off the train at Richmond, while the man is thought to have travelled to Whitton.

PC Jeffrey added: "This was a very distressing incident for the victim and I am appealing for anyone who knows the man in the the picture to contact us."

Anyone with information can contact the British Transport Police on 0800 40 50 40 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Oh dear. This is the first time I have ever felt sorry for someone suspected of masturbating on a train. He may not have been and even if he was, I would find it rather flattering that some man should choose to stare at me while masturbating, when there are so many much younger and more attractive women to stare at. I certainly would not take the time and trouble to complain of this experience to an over-zealous Investigating Officer who would rather deal with this sort of thing than catch criminals, and who should have known this is a non-crime because it does not even fulfill the elements of indecent exposure, ie the intentional exposure of one's body's privates in a manner that gives offense against accepted or prescribed behavior.

I urge us all to defy this ridiculous and oppressive non-law and call for the resignation of Marie Jeffrey by staring at each other on trains and mysteriously moving our hands under our shopping bags, briefcases and satchels ...

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

I wonder what the BNP will say about single mummery in their manifesto. Perhaps they will not even address the question in their manifesto for fear of alienating their own potential supporters, knowing of the tendency of the white proletariat to be illegitimate and their women to be single mums.

The white urban proletariat do not value education because the welfare state always provides and so don't mind sending their children to crap schools, which teach them nothing that would make them employable.

MPs and the liberal establishment, who do not have to send their children to crap comps, do not care about these people and will do nothing to address their education and training because it is more trouble than their job's worth.

Not only do the white urban proletariat suffer the problems of promiscuity, intoxication, single mummery, illegitimacy, pornography, divorce, paedophilia, low-achievement and whingeing victimhood, they find themselves on the receiving end of the contempt expressed for them by Muslims who despise this aspect of the host culture and don't want to be part of it.

If the government of such a depraved and degraded people invades Muslim lands for clearly spurious reasons, I imagine young Muslim hotheads might want to blow themselves up to express disapproval and to distance themselves from the British government under whom they live. Blowing yourself up to kill voters who keep voting unthinkingly for the same old crap parties with the same old crap policies is the strongest possible message a terrorist can possibly send, you would have thought. That, I imagine, would be the rationale behind suicide bombing by Muslims in this country.

But even they underestimate the stupidity of the British public.

Even now they rail about the numbers and powers of Muslims which their government has allowed in while doing nothing to address why they cannot stop immigration. This is because rich white people hate poor white people so much they would rather hire foreigners than poor white people.

Why are poor white people hated by rich white people? Because they are mostly illegitimate, illiterate, innumerate, intoxicated, criminal and unemployable.

The two parties who could combine to become the Third Political Party of Britain, ie BNP and UKIP, dislike and distrust each other.

The fools in Labour and the Tory Party who want an EU referendum (and thereby control immigration) but dare not vote UKIP or BNP because they fear to be associated with extremism, prefer to believe the lies and false promises their leaders tell them to keep them quiescent.

There is just a suggestion that the National Interest and Islam could form an alliance in order to more effectively destroy the arguments of totalitarian liberalism. They should first unite, and then fight each other later - after they have defeated the forces of liberalism, if they still want to fight each other.

The BNP and Muslims have more in common with each other than they would care to admit: both are feared and hated, both speak what they sincerely believe to be the truth, both are derided as extremists, both want the death penalty and corporal punishment and both are right about the folly of invading Muslim lands.

And both support family values.

Perhaps the groups we hate and fear are even now proving themselves to be extremely consistent and correct about the important things that concern us, and it would appear that the liberal establishment have been proving themselves to be extremely mistaken about many many many things for a very very long time.

Nationalists who admire Hitler should note that he found Islam a more attractive faith than Christianity.

He once remarked:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.”

Is not the refusal of the flabby liberal establishment to actively discourage the numbers of a burgeoning underclass, of bastards and the obese, paedophiles and single mums, of the illiterate, ignorant and innumerate, their refusal to tackle the problem of education and training, indeed a systematic cultivation of human failure?

It should be noted that the Church of England overwhelmingly voted to ban BNP clergy, so we all know where the ideological loyalties of these Anglicans lie: with a failing government and a failed ideology of indiscriminate compassion, whose greatest God is Moral Relativism and whose greatest goddess is Sexual Liberation.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20091103i1.htmlshows that the Japanese are declining too, even though they have a vastly different culture, are quite authoritarian and have virtually no immigrants. Becoming a single mum there would turn you into a social pariah - and quite right too - so instead of having a problem of illegitimacy as we do in the West, they have a problem of not having enough children.

Well, the Chinese, when the current lot ages, will be having the same problem too, but in spades and shovelfuls. Perhaps the Japanese need a spot of immigration to refresh their society. Or perhaps war will make men men and women women again, who seek partnerships with each other for sex, protection and provision and invest in their future by having biddable high-achieving children.

Perhaps a bit of adversity is what is required and more than a bit of adversity is on its way, not just for the Japanese, but for all of us.

Monday, 2 November 2009

The female whale basically gets the males to pursue her. The ones who keep up with her get to mate with her, because he would be swiftest and strongest and most likely to have healthy offspring than the slower ones who couldn't keep up with her. At the very least a male should be able to keep up with a female in property, intellect or strength, or there is just no point.

This is obviously not rocket science, but tragically beyond the comprehension of the average unmarried single mum, who never heard of evolutionary psychology before getting herself knocked up.

Something lacking, then, in their sex education classes where they hand out contraceptives like sweets to eager children.

All the more reason to abolish the welfare state, because it is even now lowering the quality of the next generation's genetic inheritance.

In case you didn't know, the average Briton is infamous for his/her stupidity, self-pity, promiscuity, paedophilia, victimhood and illegitimacy. These traits have now been elevated into a British National Characteristic for which we are internationally known.

I am now addressing my mind to the question of marital rape now that I have discovered this is a question that is exercising Singaporeans.

While it is only humane to formally proclaim that a wife is not her husband's to treat as his sex slave, surely she must also be obliged to give him reasonable access?

It is therefore arguably unnecessary to have such a law, because if he rapes her regularly she would divorce him or run away, and if she gives him no sexual access whatseover he will seek sex elsewhere, thus jeopardising if not actually terminating the marriage.

In practice it is hardly ever invoked and was always meant as a sop to the feminists.

"The feminist revolution has been powered by male greed - for sex, money, and irresponsibility", says an anti-feminist.

I would add that the feminist revolution has also been driven by the stupidity of and promiscuity of women. Stupid because they have been persuaded that being promiscuous would be good for them. Some of them probably behave promiscuously, not because they even want to, but because they must to fit in and be one of the girls.

Typically, those who are now single mums can only whinge on about how hard it is to find another man and make ends meet.

Instead of bailing these women out with yet more benefits, why don't we let them sink under their own weight of stupidity and promiscuity. It would be cheaper and far more effective.

It is the only language they understand, or they will carry on getting knocked up by their low-life men and then whinge when they have to lie in their own badly-made beds.

Marry in haste repent at leisure.

Become an unmarried single mum, and you will ruin your life and subject your offspring to a life of disadvantage, under-achievement, delinquency and crime. You should also resign yourself to having illegitimate grandchildren and jump on the slide of generational decline. This is what in fact happens anyway, but most women appear to have difficulties acknowledging this and taking responsibility for their behaviour.

Typically, they look around for some man or government department to blame or bail them out, because they cannot look after themselves.

They are clearly having difficulties understanding the concept of moral hazard or think it does not apply to them because they are women. Either they cannot understand or they will not understand, because grasping and acting on the logic of this conclusion would mean sounding a bit like me, ie uncompassionate, intolerant and judgemental.

Being women, they think these qualities are unwomanly, so they continue to whinge, but continue to reject any solution that might work.

I wouldn't put these women in Homes for Fallen Women (or Foyers as Gordon Brown calls them), I would stop their child benefit and open Homes for Abandoned Children.

Prostitutes at least have the virtue of making men know that if they cannot get sex from a girlfriend or a wife they must pay for it, and that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The truth is that these men cannot get it for "free" from a woman because they are basically low-status men who are obviously not good husband and father material. Or if they are already married, they are unfortunate in not finding what they have sexually adequate or are insatiably depraved.

Paying for a prostitute reinforces the lower status of these men and sends a message to other men that they must up their game if they want their own woman in their own home.

I would also like to make unmarried mothers acknowledged to be of a lower status than prostitutes, because they are too stupid to even ask for payment. Allowing a man who cares nothing for you to impregnate you and then leave you holding the baby suggests just a bit of culpable stupidity, does it not?

A prostitute at least has the sense to ask for payment and is therefore both more useful to society (because her services have commercial value) and less culpably stupid.